SARS pandemic a worry, but now it's wait and see

The Baltimore Sun ^ | April 19, 2003 | Julie Bell and Erika Niedowski

[Dog Gone]

With victims in 26 countries, including four regions of China, the mysterious flu-like illness known as SARS has scientists increasingly worried about the spectre of a worldwide pandemic.

There is always a chance that severe acute respiratory syndrome, which has killed at least 170, will fizzle out on its own. Or it could become a disease we learn to live with, like the flu.

But medical professionals, particularly those on the front lines, worry that the new coronavirus that causes SARS is proving too wily a foe.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Yep. A 'pandemic' with perhaps three thousand cases in a world population of six-ish billion. Truly...

[per loin]

Yes. A mere 300,000% increase since Nov 16.

[aristeides]

Was there ever a pandemic of which the equivalent could not have been said at some point?

[Dog Gone]

If you'd actually read the article, it's a rather balanced discussion of whether it is likely to develop into a pandemic. It's not arguing that one is occurring at this moment.

[Cicero]

I hate to sound pessimistic, but I think a pandemic is inevitable. It has already clearly escaped the half-hearted attempts to contain it.

Although I haven't seen anything in print, it strikes me that it may prove to be seasonal, like colds and flu (and in earlier times the plague). If so, it may not really break loose until next fall.

[_Jim]

It has already clearly escaped the half-hearted attempts to contain it.

Geez - WHAT statistics are you reading?

Honk Kong stats show a reduction in new cases ...

[Judith Anne]

I think that we'll see a number of new cases this fall during the traditional flu season...that plus the regular flu is going to have dr's and ER's hopping, that's my opinion.

Each year's flu starts in the spring in the far east, and makes it to the US in the fall. Over spring and summer, the vaccine is made and distributed.

[ex-Texan]

If the virus is mutating it may starting killing greater percentages of the population. Recall the Spanish Flu of 1918. It had a death rate of only 2.5%. Yet it killed 20 million people. Toward the end, the flu mutated and was killing 28% of its victims.

This article is intended to calm the masses. "Not to worry, it is overseas and not here, and anyway we almost have a hand on it ..."

That is the same thing the WHO experts were saying when the nasty disease was confined to Hong Kong. Only were 100 victims then. That was just 3 weeks ago.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

A news-rag article? A news-rag that depends on ignorance, hyperbole and hysteria to sell ad space?! Sorry, I read at a bit different level.

[Dog Gone]

Which level is that? What places do you go to find information that you're withholding from us?

[dhuffman@awod.com]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/sars/

[Judith Anne]

Actually most of what is on the CDC website has been discussed on the SARS threads at one time or another here. That is, however, a semi-excellent source for information.

Without getting into a flame war, I do think that the CDC is unnecessarily restrictive in limiting the case definition to people known to have been in one of the countries or cities known to have SARS already, or close contact with someone who has been in an affected area recently.

The person might not even know, after all, that they had been on an elevator, for instance, with someone who had recently been to an infected area...

[Judith Anne]

Of course, it's always possible that I missed something more inclusive in the CDC case definition...

[Eric Cassano]

Without getting into a flame war, I do think that the CDC is unnecessarily restrictive in limiting the case definition to people known to have been in one of the countries or cities known to have SARS already, or close contact with someone who has been in an affected area recently.

The person might not even know, after all, that they had been on an elevator, for instance, with someone who had recently been to an infected area...

Thank you Judith Anne for pointing this out. The lame-stream media should have exposed this little CDC word game long ago.

For the CDC to assume that a SARS victim couldn't have been infected unknowingly is insane. They're basically saying.... if the patient can't be linked to a high risk SARS area, or a known suspected SARS case, then he can't have SARS. And according to their definition of suspected SARS, they'd be right! What a scam. PT Barnum would be proud.

A while ago I sent an e-mail to the CDC asking them why their case definition for suspected SARS would potentially allow many cases to "slip through the cracks" and go uncounted. They never answered me. (Boo hoo)

The CDC has since updated their case definition, but it still has loopholes that allow for massive underreporting in my opinion. And the CDC has the nerve to say their case definition for suspected SARS is "broad". Give me a break.

Since the CDC's system for reporting and documenting suspected SARS cases is obviously flawed, maybe we should also be following the number of boring old pneumonia cases to find out how bad the "mystery illness" situation really is.

[Judith Anne]

"Boring old pneumonia" does account for a lot of deaths each year in the US. I don't think they are SARS, truthfully, but until a test is readily available here in this country, and until it's accurate, there is no way to know who has SARS where.

The pneumonia of SARS is not the typical pneumonia. Most pneumonias are identifiable in the hospital lab.

We need a current, accurate, speedy test for SARS or we will not know anything about its spread in the US.